“Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber” memo goes viral, usual suspects outraged

Deleted User wrote: »

Also

Why
Did
He
Leave
His
PhD
?

I don't have that info.

LionelNashe

wes wrote: »

Google owns Youtube...........

So what? Just because Google fired the guy doesn't mean that they can or will block him from using their platform to make himself a few hundred grand a year. Even that Inforwars guy has a youtube channel that hasn't been shut down.

[Deleted User]

wes wrote: »

Sure, he may try that, but a long process like you describe, will result in his life being turned upside down. Its been a few days, and we already have people questioning his educational claims. Dragging this out, may not work all that well for him as he may think.

Also

Why
Did
He
Leave
His
PhD
?

Bob24 wrote: »

Yes agreed there's not point in going to court if what you're after is cash.

But if you want regular media coverage to be able to make your points and become known to a specific audience, a long judicial process might be your preferred choice.

Sure, he may try that, but a long process like you describe, will result in his life being turned upside down. Its been a few days, and we already have people questioning his educational claims. Dragging this out, may not work all that well for him as he may think.

wes wrote: »

Google can easily drag things out for years and years out of spite if they want. Its a bad idea to go up against Google, unless you have iron clad case, which I don't think this guy does.

Yes agreed there's not point in going to court if what you're after is cash.

But if you want regular media coverage to be able to make get your points accross and become known to a specific audience, a long judicial process might be your preferred choice.

Dyr

JRant wrote: »

Even if he does bring a case it'll never get to a courtroom. There'll be a PFO settlement and that'll be the end of it.

Regardless of the rights or wrongs of his dismissal. They'll want it to go away as quick as possible.

Absolutely, google do not want to be shown up to have done wrong in this case. he will most likely be paid off handsomely to f**k off quietly into the sunset

Not a bad move if he planned it that way

Bob24 wrote: »

Or unless he decides he want to make a point out of it.

Google can easily drag things out for years and years out of spite if they want. Its a bad idea to go up against Google, unless you have iron clad case, which I don't think this guy does.

Its very likely that Google will clamp down on political speech (as will other companies) after this mess. Rightly so imo, this whole thing has caused nothing but trouble for Google, and its certainly not worth the bother.

wes wrote: »

Yeah, that will be the likely outcome, unless someone gets greedy.

Or unless he decides he want to make a point out of it and is interested in politics more than immediate cash gains.

But clearly if it comes o that and if I was him I would take the money. The quality of legal advice he could get is way below what Google can afford so going to court would be at his disadvantage.

LionelNashe wrote: »

Maybe he won't accept a settlement though. Some more publicity might be more useful. He has enough intelligence and enough writing ability, and now he has the exposure, to write a book, contribute to blogs/media, set up a youtube channel, or all of the above. Some of those youtubers are making silly money. He should get himself an agent and some advisors and he'll make 10X more money just being a public figure than he would as an engineer.

Google owns Youtube...........

JRant wrote: »

Oh I'm sure it's happened at other companies before. I'm just outlining how incredibly throughout Google are in their hiring process. You need to do at least 9 interviews, pass the background check and give permission to your University to hand over your records. They are incredibly paranoid when it comes to hiring and it would be extremely difficult to get anything past them.

Yes, I know about there process, but again its not impossible that they screwed up, for any number of reasons. We don't know what he said to Google, but we do know that Harvard dispute the claims on his LinkedIn page.

LionelNashe

JRant wrote: »

Even if he does bring a case it'll never get to a courtroom. There'll be a PFO settlement and that'll be the end of it.

Regardless of the rights or wrongs of his dismissal. They'll want it to go away as quick as possible.

Maybe he won't accept a settlement though. Some more publicity might be more useful. He has enough intelligence and enough writing ability, and now he has the exposure, to write a book, contribute to blogs/media, set up a youtube channel, or all of the above. Some of those youtubers are making silly money. He should get himself an agent and some advisors and he'll make 10X more money just being a public figure than he would as an engineer.

wes wrote: »

Yes, and I don't think Harvard are in the business of telling lies about Alumni to 2 separate news organisations, on a high profile news story.

Also, plenty of high profile people have gotten away with lieing on there CVs:

17 successful executives who have lied on their résumés

Big companies like Walmart and Yahoo are on that list, and we not talking about lowly bottom of the rung employees, but the guys at the very top, getting away with lieing.

Oh I'm sure it's happened at other companies before. I'm just outlining how incredibly throughout Google are in their hiring process. You need to do at least 9 interviews, pass the background check and give permission to your University to hand over your records. They are incredibly paranoid when it comes to hiring and it would be extremely difficult to get anything past them.

JRant wrote: »

Even if he does bring a case it'll never get to a courtroom. There'll be a PFO settlement and that'll be the end of it.

Regardless of the rights or wrongs of his dismissal. They'll want it to go away as quick as possible.

Yeah, that will be the likely outcome, unless someone gets greedy.

Deleted User wrote: »

Why
Did
He
Leave
His
PhD
?

If he did, the timing on his linkedin profile indicates that it was probably because Google hired him before he finished.

Pretty common for Google to hire people who are about to finish their PhD. They are supposed to finish it in the first few months after taking up the job but often don't find the time/motivation to do so. I personally know 2 people to whom it happened.

wes wrote: »

True enough, it will probably be used against him, but if he did lie to Google, it will look very bad in any kind of court room setting.

Even if he does bring a case it'll never get to a courtroom. There'll be a PFO settlement and that'll be the end of it.

Regardless of the rights or wrongs of his dismissal. They'll want it to go away as quick as possible.

JRant wrote: »

Here's the thing Wes, when you go for a job with Google they go through your CV with a fine tooth comb. They will go to your University to actually see your records. They don't leave anything to chance, especially not when they are going to be paying you a 6 figure salary.

Yes, and I don't think Harvard are in the business of telling lies about Alumni to 2 separate news organisations, on a high profile news story.

Also, plenty of high profile people have gotten away with lieing on there CVs:

17 successful executives who have lied on their résumés

Big companies like Walmart and Yahoo are on that list, and we not talking about lowly bottom of the rung employees, but the guys at the very top, getting away with lieing.

[Deleted User]

Why
Did
He
Leave
His
PhD
?

JRant wrote: »

That's fair enough. I missed that in your reply.

Lying on LinkedIn is nothing, it's by far the worst social media platform full of blow-hard arse-lickers posing as "professional's".

True enough, it will probably be used against him, but if he did lie to Google, it will look very bad in any kind of court room setting.

wes wrote: »

Yeah, he might have a case, but I don't fancy his chances, and if he did lie to Google on his CV, it won't help his cause.

That is certainly possible, and hence why I found a 2nd source, with Wired. Its very unlikely, that both would be wrong.

Here's the thing Wes, when you go for a job with Google they go through your CV with a fine tooth comb. They will go to your University to actually see your records. They don't leave anything to chance, especially not when they are going to be paying you a 6 figure salary.

Bob24 wrote: »

See what a poster shared just above your post. He might have a case and what can easily be described as a mistake on his linkedin profile (if it is inaccurate) won't affect that.

Yeah, he might have a case, but I don't fancy his chances, and if he did lie to Google on his CV, it won't help his cause.

Bob24 wrote: »

Yes I was referring to the journalist saying the guys was not being reachable. They are saying they only heard one side of the story and since there could be mistakes/misunderstandings they don't want to just print "he didn't complete a PhD" in a conclusive style.

That is certainly possible, and hence why I found a 2nd source, with Wired. Its very unlikely, that both would be wrong.

Bambi wrote: »

lol, remember what phrase I used when I said the guy has a case: Discussion of terms of employment. Guess what kiddo?

Wow, you reply to my post, after several pages and replying to my later posts. How much time did you spend on this

Bambi wrote: »

The benefit of having a few miles on the clock is that you've been around the employment law block a bit so you can spot the spoofers like your good self

Quoting someone else doesn't make you an expert on employment law. Its funny that you actually think that.

Bambi wrote: »

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/07/it-may-be-illegal-for-google-to-punish-engineer-over-anti-diversity-memo-commentary.html?recirc=taboolainternal

Well, we will see how well the whole thing holds up in court. My money is on Googles lawyers with that one.

Also, note the qualifiers in the title of the article you linked:

Why it may be illegal for Google to punish that engineer over his now viral anti-diversity memo

Interesting how you left out the title of the linked article. A lot caveats and if and buts. Its certainly an interesting contrary opinion, but its hardly the smoking gun you present. Nice try however.

wes wrote: »

I am clearly saying that he lied on his LinkedIn, and I already said we don't know what he put on his CV:

I already admitted we don't know if he lied to Google.......

That's fair enough. I missed that in your reply.

Lying on LinkedIn is nothing, it's by far the worst social media platform full of blow-hard arse-lickers posing as "professional's".

wes wrote: »

Except assault his character, and your know the whole working in an "at will" state thing, which will make extremely difficult for him to win. Best case for him is to get Google to settle, to make the whole thing go away.

See what a poster shared just above your post. He might have a case and what can easily be described as a mistake on his linkedin profile (if it is inaccurate) won't affect that.

Yes I was referring to the journalist saying the guys was not being reachable. They are saying they only heard one side of the story and since there could be mistakes/misunderstandings they don't want to just print "he didn't complete a PhD" in a conclusive style.

Bob24 wrote: »

I wouldn't have quoted it if wanted ignored it. However if the journalist had wanted to be conclusive they won't have added the following sentence which you are not considering.

Harvard were very clear to both wired and reuters. Sorry, but its pretty conclusive, unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, and what line are you talking about:

Fired Google memo writer draws jeers, cheers and a job offer

--SNIP--
The LinkedIn page also says Damore received a PhD in systems biology from Harvard University in 2013. Harvard said on Tuesday he completed a master's degree in the subject, not a PhD. He could not immediately be reached on Tuesday.
--SNIP--

BTW, do you mean the line where he couldn't be reached? How does that cast doubt on what Harvard said exactly? The whole thing seems pretty straight forward, unless new information to the contrary surfaces, the whole thing is pretty clear.

Bob24 wrote: »

Very well I indeed missed that. So basically nothing they can seriously use against him to wight in a potential unfair dismissal court case.

Except assault his character, and your know the whole working in an "at will" state thing, which will make extremely difficult for him to win. Best case for him is to get Google to settle, to make the whole thing go away.

Dyr

wes wrote: »

You actually think that Google didn't consult there army of lawyers, when firing this guy? He doesn't have a leg to stand on, especially when he is based in a "at will" state. I don't need to be an expert, to understand that a big company wouldn't take a decision like this without consulting there lawyers. Its common practice.

Again read up on at will employment:

I don't need to be an expert to understand the above, and you have yet to provide on what grounds what Google did was illegal. Just vague stuff about "clever legal" teams.
.

lol, remember what phrase I used when I said the guy has a case: Discussion of terms of employment. Guess what kiddo?

The benefit of having a few miles on the clock is that you've been around the employment law block a bit so you can spot the spoofers like your good self

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/07/it-may-be-illegal-for-google-to-punish-engineer-over-anti-diversity-memo-commentary.html?recirc=taboolainternal

"First, federal labor law bars even non-union employers like Google from punishing an employee for communicating with fellow employees about improving working conditions. The purpose of the memo was to persuade Google to abandon certain diversity-related practices the engineer found objectionable and to convince co-workers to join his cause, or at least discuss the points he raised.

In a reply to the initial outcry over his memo, the engineer added to his memo: "Despite what the public response seems to have been, I've gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired." The law protects that kind of "concerted activity."

Second, the engineer's memo largely is a statement of his political views as they apply to workplace policies. The memo is styled as a lament to "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber." California law prohibits employers from threatening to fire employees to get them to adopt or refrain from adopting a particular political course of action.
Danielle Brown, Google's newly installed vice president of Diversity, Integrity, & Governance, made it clear that the engineer's memo does not reflect "a viewpoint that I or this company endorses, promotes or encourages."
An employee does not have free reign to engage in political speech that disrupts the workplace, but punishing an employee for deviating from company orthodoxy on a political issue is not allowed either. Brown acknowledged that when she wrote that "an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions."

Third, the engineer complained in parts of his memo about company policies that he believes violate employment discrimination laws. Those policies include support programs limited by race or gender and promotional and hiring scoring policies that consider race and gender. It is unlawful for an employer to discipline an employee for challenging conduct that the employee reasonably believed to be discriminatory, even when a court later determines the conduct was not actually prohibited by the discrimination laws. In other words, the engineer doesn't have to be right that some of Google's diversity initiatives are unlawful, only that he reasonably believes that they are.
Brown is correct that an employee has no right to engage in workplace discourse that offends anti-discrimination laws; employees may not engage in unlawful harassment under the guise of protected concerted activity or political grievances.
The lawful response to this software engineer's memo, however, appears to be continuation of the dialogue he started rather than termination of his employment."

Commentary by Dan Eaton, a partner with the San Diego law firm of Seltzer Caplan McMahon Vitek, where his practice focuses on defending and advising employers. He also is a professor at the San Diego State University Fowler College of Business where he teaches classes in business ethics and employment law. Follow him on Twitter @DanEatonlaw.

LionelNashe

Grayson wrote: »

You think it should be acceptable to walk into work and state that someone is an inferior worker because of their gender or race? You think a company should be ok with it?

The question is, do you respond by arguing against the person, and providing evidence/refuting his evidence, or do you just shut him down by shaming him and firing him. The point that he made in the manifesto about left & right politics being based on deep moral biases, I thought, was a very good one, and one I hadn't heard before. If he had sent around an email saying that the company should switch from using HP printers to using Dell printers because HP were better, it wouldn't be seen as a moral issue. People would argue for or against, or agree to disagree. However if he says that men are better at X, and women are better than Y, discussion is shut down because it's seen as morally wrong to go against the diversity policy.

Similarly, if a policy in Europe is called 'socialist', it's just a descriptive term, with no moral judgment. However in the US it can be used as an insult, because there's a moral judgment associated with it (I presume a hangover from McCarthyism or the cold war), and then the policy gets shot down without debate.

Grayson wrote: »

Yes, he did and you're defending him.

Quote? If he did that there's no way I'll defend his position that but we need to be clear on what we are talking about.

Asside from hatrickpatrick I don't think anyone has clearly quoted parts of his memo and explained why they are unhappy with them so it's a bit pointless have an argument about whether what he said was acceptable or not if we are not even clear what we are talking about.

Anyone will agree that saying "someone is an inferior worker because of their gender or race" is not acceptable but the questions are: did he actually say that and what is the appropriate reaction?

For a starter there is nothing about race in the document. I can see he is saying than on average men and women can have different affinities about the type of work they are interested in or different qualities. But:
1) saying they are different is not saying qualities more prominent within a gender are useful while the ones more prominent within the other are worthless. There is no hierarchy I can see.
2) he is clearly saying he's looking at averages but this shouldn't be used to draw conclusions about a specific individual.

Is that what is considered as describing women as inferior or is there something else I have missed?

wes wrote: »

The whole part were you ignore Harvard clearly stating he didn't complete his PhD

Perfect example of ignoring facts that you don't like. You have literally just quote Harvard clearly stating he didn't complete a PhD. The depths of denial at this point are really rather astonishing.

I wouldn't have quoted it if wanted ignored it. However if the journalist had wanted to be conclusive they won't have added the following sentence which you are not considering.

wes wrote: »

I didn't ignore you:

I already admitted that I don't know if he lied to Google. You need to learn to actually read what is posted.

Very well I indeed missed that. So basically nothing they can seriously use against him to wight in a potential unfair dismissal court case.